Anything to do with the judges instructions to the Jury before they retire? Would one be more likely to have this scrund as a result of seeing a murder/criminal trial, a civil suit, divorce proceedings?

Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 - 2:51 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Anything to do with the judges instructions to the Jury before they retire? noWould one be more likely to have this scrund as a result of seeing a murder/criminal trial, a civil suit, divorce proceedings? You can have this scrund without seeing any trial, & seeing a trial would probably not promote it but might dispel part of it if it were a criminal trial or civil suit. Divorce proceedings are irrel

Is the scrund that someone in the justice system: do something they don't? don't do something they do? Has a power they don't? Or vice versa? Any people except judges and juries relevant? Can it be said that the scrund is about certain people in the system? Or (a) certain rule(s)/procedure(s) in the system? Laws relevant?

Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 7:48 am: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Is the scrund that someone in the justice system: do something they don't?see next answer don't do something they do?see next answer Has a power they don't? noish Or vice versa? yesAny people except judges and juries relevant? no Can it be said that the scrund is about certain people in the system? see next answer Or (a) certain rule(s)/procedure(s) in the system? yesLaws relevant? yes

Posted on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 2:00 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Did you think a judge didn't have a power s/he has? yesA jury didn't have a power they have? possibly Jury nullification relevant? yope, but the puzzle could work even if there were no such thing as jury nullification

so you thought a judge was not able to do something that actually they can? or not allowed to do something that actually they can?

does it relate to something they can say? to the jury? to the lawyers? to the court generally? to the press? to the defendant? does it relate to something they can do? does it relate to a power they have to overrule a decison made by someone else? by the jury? does it relate to a decision they can make about the way a trial runs? where it runs? who can watch? how it can be reported? when it starts and stops? does it relate to the length of the trial? stopping it? releasing the defendant? does it relate to the question of innocence or guilt of the defendant? does it relate to the way a jury behaves? who is on a jury? what they are allowed to say?

Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2011 - 7:45 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) so you thought a judge was not able to do something that actually they can? yes or not allowed to do something that actually they can?yes

does it relate to something they can say? see next answer to the jury? see next answerto the lawyers?see next ansdwer to the court generally? yesto the press? see previous answer to the defendant?yesishdoes it relate to something they can do? yesdoes it relate to a power they have to overrule a decison made by someone else? yesby the jury? yesdoes it relate to a decision they can make about the way a trial runs? no where it runs? no who can watch? nohow it can be reported? no when it starts and stops? nodoes it relate to the length of the trial? nostopping it? noreleasing the defendant? yesishdoes it relate to the question of innocence or guilt of the defendant? yopedoes it relate to the way a jury behaves? no who is on a jury? nowhat they are allowed to say? no

******* SPOILER *********** Clever Hannah to the rescue!! In the USA, a judge can override any jury verdict, except a verdict of innocence in a criminal trial. The book where I read this also said that other countries use juries much less than the US does. How is it in your country? Sorry this puzzle was so easy, but it involves an interesting little fact--& now I get to post a new puzzle!

Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2011 - 10:35 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) I didn't know that -- doesn't that kind of defeat the point of a jury? Yes or maybe yesish, because judges rarely use this power &, as I mentioned, they can't override a verdict of innocence in a criminal trial.Shez (Shez) New member Username: Shez

Post Number: 1653 Registered: 2-2011

Posted on Monday, August 22, 2011 - 7:59 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) that must be why they hand the verdict to the judge on a piece of paper before the foreman announces it in all the American films. I always wondered about that... No, the jury verdict is alwats announced. Then the lawyer who loses can say, "Motion to set aside the verdict" if it's not a verdict of innocence in a criminal trial. In any case, the jury verdict is never concealed.Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin) New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin

I was told the reason they hand the verdict to the judge on a piece of paper is to prevent confusion over what the foreman said. For instance, there was a story in Canada (where apparently they aren't required to hand it over on a piece of paper) where the foreman said "We find the defendant *clears throat* guilty" and they heard it as "We find the defendant not guilty" and released him. Eventually, they figured it out and had him arrested and thrown in jail, but his lawyer managed to get the conviction thrown out. Could just be an urban legend though.

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username:

Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.